Evaluate the modern effort to remove the question of God from moral philosophy.

Evaluate the modern effort to remove the question of God from moral philosophy. Was this a positive development overall, and in the absence of God, do we have sufficient reasons to feel obligated to live according to moral principles? Provide reasons, keeping your discussion in conversation with specific philosophers discussed in this week’s lessons.
ysabella—I think removing God from the standpoints of ethics and morals is a positive thing. However, I also think that using God as a guide to morals and ethics is a positive thing as well. I say that because with or without God, people have their own version of a guide that they use for their moral compass. I may not agree with their compass, but that is my own view. Meta-anti-realism really stuck out to me this week, because I really liked the idea that morals are constructed through experience and social interactions, rather than something specific, like the Ten Commandments. Me and my mother are both Buddhists, so we very much believe in the idea of whatever we put out into the universe, good or bad, will come back to us. Whereas some of my friends, follow the path of God and what he deems is good or bad. I think removing God from the equation gives the ability for people who don’t feel strong about following his guide, a way to create and determine their own moral compass. Whether its constructed personally, or by means of something else that they choose to follow. In the absence of God, I do think there is sufficient reason to feel obligated to live according to moral principles, because I think from my experience I do that on a daily basis. I think others can agree with me, that murder is bad, and causing harm to people is not a good thing. But others might not agree with me on the standpoint of premarital sex, which I know some religions are against, but I don’t see that as a moral dilemma for myself or others. I could talk about this forever, because its so expansive and interesting. But at the end of the day, I think morals are all subjective to each individual, whether or not they have a guide such as God, or no guide at all. Todd–The effort to remove God from the philosophical debate on morality was not futile in its efforts and driven by philosophers such as David Hume. Hume argued that moral reasoning was not deriving from reason or religion, but in fact from our experiences and feelings.
When we do something virtuous it makes us feel good so we are incited to do such things and on the contrary when we commit acts that are vice in nature we get a guilty feeling. It is from these experiences that we learn our own morals. Hume states “All of morality rest upon the natural human inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain” With Hume’s arguments I do believe that humans have a feeling of obligation to do what is morally right and are naturally drawn to acts of virtue. In the eyes of the overall good I do believe that this was a positive development overall. The intertwined nature of morality and religion could possibly “turn off” some who do not have a specified religion or are not religious in any manner from living a virtuous life. Hume’s outlook can give those who are non-believers an outlook on morality that is not connected to religion.
Religion has been a driving factor for those who believe to live within a certain moral code. The separation of religion and mortality allows those who do not believe to find another source of morality.